To: ICANN

It is pleasant that ICANN has woken up from its deep slumber (or is it tranquilizer administered to ICANN by TradeMark Lobby or Corporate Lawyer Lobby or Domain squatting Registrar lobbies or the WIPO / Other provider lobbies which run ICANN for their enjoyment) and finally given the small NON-COMMERCIAL domain registrants a public platform to vent their grievances about the UDRP as it stands today in is bastardized version as interpreted by the Providers like WIPO and their puppet Arbitrators who are sold out to the commercial vested interests listed above .

As a universitum academic and member of the Open / Free Libre movements, I aa disgusted at the sellout of ICANN to Commercial trademark holders and total failure of UDRP to protect the non-commercial non-profit small domain holders against capitalist trademark accumulators and moneybag trademark hoarders who misuse UDRP.

I have perused proposal of NCSG (although I am not affiliated to them) and of Dr. Roy's draft from Brahma University and list my objections to the present UDRP and the way it is implemented by providers like WIPO.

1. On the first point I say that UDRP is a spectacular success for the Trade Mark holders to illegally grab domains from small genuine non-commercial registrants. The manner in which UDRP was misused by WIPO's single panelist in ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION : Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Sarbajit Roy - WIPO Case No. D2014-2261 highlights everything wrong with the UDRP. As an academic whose valuable research data was lost when the target domain, which was being used for purely non-commercial purposes, was reverse domain name hijacked by a global internet multinational WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION whose income is in billions of dollars and who paid the amazing sum of US$300,000 in legal fees to a top 5 US Law firm Jones Day in which the Senior Partner for IP deliberately made 17 stacked submissions to grab a domain name from a self represented registrant so as to harass and vex him sure gets my goat. Being highly upset at the time with my loss of valuable data and research media stored on the reverse domain name hijacked website, I supported, at the time, the resolution of Dr. Rajendra Dalvi, Provost Brahma University, to assassinate the panelist and his family in his home country, Unfortunately it was over ruled by the Senate of the University, but that conveys the strong revolutionary resentment of small domain holders in the global south against the Capitalists from the North when their small domain holdings are grabbed by legal trickery.

2. I wholeheartedly agree with NCSG that there is insufficient data and metrics provided by ICANN to enable non-commercial stakeholders to respond properly to this public consultation. I agree and submit that there was chicanery and deceit in 1999 when sly and subtle unexplained changes were made between the final draft and the actual UDRP. which acted against the non-commercial registrants qua the trademarks holders.

3. On the second question I say that UDRP is tremendously unfair to the small non-commercial holders, by the policy itself and especially by the way it is interpreted by the panelists with a body of decisions crafted over the years to strip genuine small domain holders . For instance it should be clear to anyone that the domain name includes the TLD identifier extension as an integral part of the domain name and that ICANN.COM is different from ICANN .ORG which is different from ICANN.SCIENCE or ICANN.GAY. Yet the the UDRP providers automatically treat for purposes of the first limb that the Commercial trademark holder with the .COM for ICANN is automatically entitled to trademark protection for a non-commercial LGBTQ information website say ICANN.GAY promoting cannabis usage in the gay community, by disregarding the domain extension. The few panel decisions (and there are a few) in favour of treating the domain name along with the extensions as the trademark to be covered are conveniently brushed aside by the majority view panelists under the garb of past precedent, when each matter should be heard and decided on its own merits.

4. I have noted the present discussion of the Temporary Spec on UDRP Policy does not reflect the extensive research, discussion and debate of the Phase I Rights Protections Mechanisms PDP Working Group. Clearly these groups must build on the work of each other, and thus, we ask that the Phase II WG, in its evaluation of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, be told of the URS Final Recommendation #2 adopted by the Phase I WG, and adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.

5. i have noted that content legal in one country, e.g., LGBTQ advocacy, is illegal and subject to the death penalty in other countries. Privacy and data protection laws are often designed to protect human rights, free speech and freedom of expression. Disclosure of the identity of a registrant, even in a UDRP decision, could create danger for that registrant and liability for the Provider and ICANN. These considerations, which arose in detail in the URS discussion in Phase I, should be carefully flagged, shared and considered in Phase II. We asked that future reports of ICANN Org to the GNSO Council and Community share all of the materials above and flag this issue, and the work of the Phase I PDP for the Phase II participants.

6. On page 13 of the status report provides background information that is misleading, and probably incorrect. Because it involves a UDRP Provider, we think it is important for the facts to be clear and accurate. The status report states: “The initial idea for a uniform policy was proposed by the World Intellectual Property Organization,” but that is not right. The initial idea of a uniform policy was proposed by the US Department of Commerce, in its Statement of Policy commonly called “The White Paper,” in June 10, 1998, which established the goal and then asked WIPO to work out the details - policy details then edited and expanded on by the Community. WIPO did not initiate the work.

7. As NCSG has pointed out in their submission the UDRP was proposed by the US Department of Commerce. The present UDRP is therefore heavily biased in favor of the United States of America and against Registrants from the global south. A few points may be made in this connection.

a) A rich gringo corporate aggressor from the USA can easily spend $300,000 in legal fees and WIPO fees whereas the domain holder peon like Dr Roy is compelled to be self represented because he and his socialist body working among the poor and under-privileged cannot afford the thousand of US dollars required to pay for a panelist of their own. Why does not ICANN have mandatory "countrywise purchasing power parity" based fees at every stage to eliminate this inequity and bias ? I suggest UDRP be amended to reflect global income disparities in the matter of fees so that poor registrants are not squeezed out or discriminated against for their poverty.

b) Why are the UDRP proceedings not conducted in languages like Hindi and Bengali which are more spoken than many languages in the approved list? Was Dr. Roy discriminated when the Panelist rejected Hindi (the 3rd largest world language) and compelled him to respond in English without giving him extra time for his disability ? I suggest UDRP be amended to allow proceedings in the language spoken by the domain Registrant.

c) Only 10 days is allowed for filing a court case by the losing side. In poor countries with weak IP regimes there is a great shortage of lawyers who understand UDRP, The few which are there are too expensive to use. Maybe in USA cases can be filed in 10 days but in the global south it is not always possible especially when the loser is a non-commercial person. I suggest that UDRP be amended to allow 21 days for filing in a court and only after receipt of a certified printed copy of the panel decision as needed to file. The time of 10 days is too short.

As a universitum academic and member of the Open / Free Libre movements, I am disgusted at the sellout of ICANN to Commercial trademark holders and total failure of unfair UDRP to protect the non-commercial non-profit small domain holders against capitalist trademark accumulators and moneybag trademark hoarder grabbers who misuse UDRP against registrants from Global South

The UDRP was proposed by the US Department of Commerce. The present UDRP is therefore heavily biased in favor of the USA and against Registrants from the global south.eg.

a) A rich gringo corporate aggressor from the USA can easily spend $300,000 in legal fees and WIPO fees whereas the domain holder peon like Dr Roy is compelled to be self represented because he and his socialist body working among the poor and under-privileged cannot afford the thousand of US dollars required to pay for a panelist of their own. Why does not ICANN have mandatory "countrywise purchasing power parity" based fees at every stage to eliminate this inequity and bias ? I suggest UDRP be amended to reflect global income disparities in the matter of fees so that poor registrants are not squeezed out or discriminated against for their poverty

b) Why are the UDRP proceedings not conducted in languages like Hindi and Bengali which are more spoken than many languages in the approved list? Was Dr. Roy discriminated when the Panelist rejected Hindi (the 3rd largest world language) and compelled him to respond in English? I suggest UDRP be amended to allow proceedings in the language spoken by the domain Registrant

c) Only 10 days is allowed for filing a court case by the losing side. In poor countries with weak IP regimes there is a great shortage of lawyers who understand UDRP, The few which are there are too expensive to use. Maybe in USA cases can be filed in 10 days but in the global south it is not always possible especially when the loser is a non-commercial person. Time for filing court case should be at least 21 days